The plaintiffs sued the defendant doctors for alleged medical malpractice in relation to late-diagnosis of a condition that resulted in cognitive and physical disabilities. After a lengthy jury trial, the jury found that the defendants met the standard of care and dismissed the action. The plaintiffs appealed, seeking a new trial on the basis that the defendants’ standard of care expert gave evidence that went far beyond the scope of his expertise, failed to demonstrate impartiality, and usurped the jury’s proper role in opining on core credibility and factual questions. The Court of Appeal accepted the plaintiff’s position that the expert’s evidence overstepped its boundaries, allowed the appeal, and ordered a new trial.
Menu